Monday, October 12, 2015

Entrepreneurial Farmer by Ambrosio R. Villorente

The Fate of Akelco

The Board of Directors (BoD) and
Management of Akelco will hold a referendum on the fate of Akelco scheduled on
December 12, 2015. Akelco member/consumers will select one from among the three
(3) options which are: 1. Akelco to remain as non-stock, non-profit electric
cooperative under the National Electric Administration (NEA); 2. To convert
Akelco into stock cooperative under the Cooperative Development Authority
(CDA); and 3. To convert Akelco into stock corporation under the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).

The pamphlet defined the terms
Conversion and Referendum. It identified conversion issues. It also cited the
legal basis of the conduct of the referendum. The pamphlet also identified the
“Key Areas of change which are: 1. Functions of Authorities; 2. Governing law
and authority; 3. Ownership and membership and requirements; 4. Type and
purpose of existence; 5. Quorum requirement; 6. Management and 7. Tax treatment
in either of the three (3) government regulatory offices as NEA, CDA, and SEC.

The pamphlet also presented the
supervisory powers of NEA, CDA and SEC over its respective business firms as to
institutional and technical aspects. Moreover, the pamphlet presented the
duties and responsibilities of member-consumers under NEA, member-cooperators
under CDA, and as stockholders under the SEC.

The “Historical Profile”
occupied five (5) pages or 25 percent of the space in the pamphlet.

Akelco was incorporated by
virtue of Republic Act 6038. It was registered on April 25, 1972. The profile
pointed the process Akelco underwent for the last 43 years since 1972. It ended
with “Akelco remaining to be a performing cooperative adhering to all
compliances and doing its best to serve the province of Aklan including the two
towns of Antique. With the entry of Open Access, Akelco, with the support of
its member consumers will continue to survive in the deregulated environment
and soar high in its mandate for total rural electrification.”

To the Akelco-Consumer members,
please secure a copy of the said pamphlet, read it, study it, analyze it, and
compare it with the actuality occurring at Akelco and to you, to us. The
pamphlet has anonymous author. Yet it presented the good side of Akelco under
NEA.

During the Press Conference held
on September 28, the board of Directors of Akelco made known their consensus
that they prefer to remain as non-stock, non-profit cooperative under the NEA.
They are contented, they are happy, they enjoy under NEA. To them at Akelco, it
is DMHM or “Dito’y Mabuti Hanggang Mayroon”.

To my fellow consumer members,
are you DMHM in Akelco? After 43 years of power distribution in Aklan, what can
you say of Akelco’s services? Akelco’s power rate? Does Akelco promote
conducive environment?

Today, Akelco has one of the
highest power rates its consumer members pay. It has comparatively frequent
power interruptions and promotes ugliness in the environment. It has impeded
roads improvement as its electric posts block parts of the roads.

We’ll continue our analysis of
the forthcoming Akelco Referendum in the next issue concerning areas of change.

To Use
Kalibo Bridge

Except for the two approaches,
Kalibo bridge is finished. It also needs painting. However, unless the two
approaches are constructed, it can never be used for the purpose it was
constructed.

The DPWH has not cleared the
obstructions such as electric/telephone/cable TV posts are not removed. DPWH
has not negotiated with the property owners as to how much the properties
government will pay them of their real properties and improvement.

Can the DPWH pay them so that as
early as possible, the bridge will be useful? If not, millions of pesos of
government investment is wasted.

Is it a habit of the DPWH
officials constructing infrastructure projects without asking all the questions
in the feasibility study and answered in the affirmative?

In Bohol, DPWH constructed a
bridge costing hundreds of million pesos. But since its completion, it has
never been used . The approach of the bridge is blocked by a big Roman Catholic
church. Why did the DPWH construct the said bridge without the permission of
the Roman Catholic officials to demolish the said church?/MP